My EM200 easily imaged with a TOA130 plus accessories which is pushing 30 lbs., and that much again in counterweights for over 60 lbs total. That is a very comfortable weight for the Tak when everything is balanced properly, however it feels like it is on the limit of PEAK performance. I don't know how the G11 does in comparison but it LOOKS like it might handle a bit more.

You might also consider things that contribute to stability outside of the mount, like the dovetail system and tripod. Having owned a G11 for 10+ years I can say its dovetail and saddle are very stout and its tripod is extremely stable. I don't know how these compare with the Tak mount. Of course if you're going to put the mount on a permanent pier, the tripod is irrelevant.

Although it's only a guideline, I've heard it said to never put more on it than it weighs itself. I believe this was a reference to photographic work. In that case, they are pretty similar, but I think the G11 has a little more mass (few pounds?).

Does cast vs. machined billet make a difference? I'm under the impression that billet's (usually forged) are always stronger. I know that is the case for performance automobile wheels.

Does cast vs. machined billet make a difference? I'm under the impression that billet's (usually forged) are always stronger. I know that is the case for performance automobile wheels.

I shouldn't think so. The usable imaging load will be limited by other factors long before structural failure becomes an issue. Regarding saddles - the EM-200 would have at least a Losmandy saddle (they offer one drilled for the Tak mount) but they are usually equipped with superior units from BT or the like.

The Losmandy tripod is more encouraging but far less portable than the Tak. I don't image in the field so that one's not an issue for me; I just want a portable tripod to take out for occasional field use.

I figure that they both top out at about 40 pounds for undegraded imaging performance but I'd be willing to add quite a bit to either one for visual use.

I have no experience with the Tak tripod but didn't fine the portability of the G11 tripod to be an issue. I'd either transport it assemble in the back of my SUV or pickup or take the three legs off the central pier and stick them in the trunk of my car. It is nearly as solid as a permanent pier and for me that outweighed the relative inconvenience... and that was for strictly visual use with a C11. YMMV

Indeed, the G-11 tripod is like a portable pier compared to many tripods. It breaks down about as fast as you can fold a tripod and only takes a little room when broken down.1/4" thick aluminum tubes make for very little vibration.Blueman

The EM200 costs about US $ 6,000.00 (NO tripod) and the Losmandy G11 costs about US $ 3,000.00 (NO tripod) plus maybe US $ 1,000.00 for some upgrade pieces, still leaves you a spare of US 2,000.00 for a nice scope

The Orion Atlas is an EM200 clone. Not saying that it is as good as an EM200 just that it is similar in size and design. The Losmandy G11 is in a class above that size. I have a CGE (similar in size/capacity to the G11) and an Atlas and the CGE is a beefier mount. I know others here will say the Atlas is comparable to the CGE/ G11 mounts but they are full of you know what. I have the CGE and Atlas set up side by side right now and if i could find my card reader to post pics i would but i just moved and i can't locate it at the moment. I'm not knocking any of them just telling it like it is.Oh, and for those who say that the LXD750 is capable of more payload han the CGE (some nice fellow on astromart has stated that on his recent ad) you are full of cow poopies. The counterweight shaft alone on the LXD prevents it from competing. I am not just speculating - i've owned two LXD750's and three CGE's.

The Orion Atlas is an EM200 clone. Not saying that it is as good as an EM200 just that it is similar in size and design. The Losmandy G11 is in a class above that size. I have a CGE (similar in size/capacity to the G11) and an Atlas and the CGE is a beefier mount.

Hi, Jason!

No argument there - but having owned both the Atlas and the EM-200 I can report that the Tak is also a beefier mount than the Atlas. The similarities are only skin deep.

Of course, I'm one of those who feels the LXD750 can image with a heavier load than any of the above so we have a fundamental difference of opinion anyway!

Fact or fiction, I don't know. Many say the high end manufacturers rate their mounts for photographic loads and the low/mid range manufacturers rate their mounts for a maximum load. (Excluding CW's)
Losmandy states the "Instrument capacity" of the G-11 at 60lbs. Yet for the HGM Titan, they state "Photographic capacity". I don't know where the source of the ratings came to be about the 50% rule of thumb. I had a G-11 and a TEC160 mounted and to me, the mount seemed to be at it's limit. In fact, I didn't feel comfortable putting that much weight on it. Call me paranoid. I'm not saying people don't image with G-11's with more then the rule of thumb. Lot's of folks do. But I'm sure they put a lot more effort into making sure everything is set up just right.

The Orion Atlas is an EM200 clone. Not saying that it is as good as an EM200 just that it is similar in size and design. The Losmandy G11 is in a class above that size. I have a CGE (similar in size/capacity to the G11) and an Atlas and the CGE is a beefier mount.

Hi, Jason!

No argument there - but having owned both the Atlas and the EM-200 I can report that the Tak is also a beefier mount than the Atlas. The similarities are only skin deep.

Of course, I'm one of those who feels the LXD750 can image with a heavier load than any of the above so we have a fundamental difference of opinion anyway!

Hi John. Don't mind me, i was just rambling. (get a few late night cocktails in me and that's what happens ) I did have a bad experience with an LXD750 so i guess i'm biased. You've got waay more imaging experience than i do so i'll take your word for it.

The EM200 costs about US $ 6,000.00 (NO tripod) and the Losmandy G11 costs about US $ 3,000.00 (NO tripod) plus maybe US $ 1,000.00 for some upgrade pieces, still leaves you a spare of US 2,000.00 for a nice scope

Just my 2 cents about the " 50% AstroPhotography " rule ...

Spoke to Losmandy today and they are confirming the "imaging" load to be 60 lbs. He noted that the max payload is at 75. But when we spoke about what is "ideal" for imaging, he stepped that down to 45-50 lbs to be a comfortable imaging range.

So, I gather that it can carry a bit more and some have probably pushed the limit of the scope and had very good results. I feel it may vary but it is capable.

Will probably need to ask the same question to Art C. at Tak. Am. to see what he has to say.

Hi,The TEC160 was not so much the weight, but the length of the scope that makes it more difficult to support. Put a shorter scope with less moment arm and then the load can be increased.A longer scope that weights 25-30 lbs mounted, will definitely test many mounts. Then maybe an AP1200 or AP900 would be a better choice or even the MI250?Blueman

Hi Skler,Yeah, I would agree with that, 45-50 lbs would be a more comfortable weight with the 60 lbs being the absolute limit with the right setup, but would probably be prone to shakes in any wind or other stimulus.Blueman

Spoke to Losmandy today and they are confirming the "imaging" load to be 60 lbs. He noted that the max payload is at 75. But when we spoke about what is "ideal" for imaging, he stepped that down to 45-50 lbs to be a comfortable imaging range.

So, I gather that it can carry a bit more and some have probably pushed the limit of the scope and had very good results. I feel it may vary but it is capable.

Will probably need to ask the same question to Art C. at Tak. Am. to see what he has to say.

I don't think what Art says will be of much help. The problem is there's no standard criteria for rating a mount's capacity, so Losmandy and Art/Takahashi most likely won't be using the same criteria.

What might be interesting is to ask both not just what the ideal and/or max imaging capacity is, but also ask them how they came up with those numbers. I think that might shed some light on the expectations they want to set.

The problem is there's no standard criteria for rating a mount's capacity, so Losmandy and Art/Takahashi most likely won't be using the same criteria.

Some manufacturers (Tak, AP, MI, others) publish performance specifications for their mounts. In those cases the weight rating must therefore be the weight at which those numbers can be reliably achieved. Thus, those are the manufacturers whose weight ratings are considered to require no derating for imaging.

Other manufacturers make no representations as to performance. Their weight ratings are thus not tied to performance at all; there is no telling what the source of those figures may be. It is those manufacturers whose weight "ratings" are generally considered to require reduction to achieve good imaging performance.